> Thanks, Teresa. I took almost all of your suggestions. The only thing
> different is that I have "Nine out of ten computer scientists" instead of
> "thousands of computer scientists." The reason is that it might seem that
> thousands of computer scientists are also promoting paperless voting. DREs
> have only a handful of supporters in the scientific community. Also, we have
> evidence to back up the 9/10 claim (acm survey, etc.).
>
> I would be interested in what others think about that.
>
> Anyway, your version, Teresa, is more effective, I believe. Thanks again!
>
> Alan D.
>
>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: Teresa Hommel <mailto:tahommel@earthlink.net>
>>
>> To: voting-project@lists.sonic.net
>>
>> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 6:35 AM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [voting-project] Promote the donation campaign?
>>
>>
>> BRAVO, this is excellent, and here are a few tiny changes.
>> (Reasons: don't praise DREs. Drop "easy to use" -- it is easier to mark a
>> paper ballot by pencil by hand than use a DRE)
>> Teresa Hommel
>>
>> Subject: OVC Announces Goal of "1111 by 11/11"
>>
>> On November 2, tens of millions of invisible ballots created with secret
>> software might or might not be counted--by additional secret software! Will
>> those votes be handled correctly? Ask for a recount and someone'll push a
>> button and get the same number. Thousands of computer scientists say we
>> should not entrust democracy to these voting machines (called Direct Record
>> Electronic or "DRE"). Any advantages DREs offer (no need for a pre-printed
>> ballot, assistance for voters with disabilities or non-English languages)
>> can be obtained by using computerized ballot-printing machines that leave
>> people in control of elections.
>>
>> Vendors and election officials say, "trust us." But why should we? What if
>> we could print out our completed ballots on-the-spot in the voting booth
>> using an inexpensive computerized machine with the advantages of paperless
>> DREs but none of the disadvantages? Major newspapers from coast-to-coast
>> have endorsed the concept of public software and paper ballots that the Open
>> Voting Consortium (OVC) is promoting. The San Jose Mercury news called the
>> OVC system the "Holy Grail." [ link ]
>>
>> OVC is working on a secure voting system that serves voters with
>> disabilities and non-English languages, but produces a printed ballot. All
>> components including software will be publicly inspectable. But institutions
>> are supporting business as usual. Who is supporting OVC? Will you? OVC needs
>> your help now. It will take on-going support over the next two years to
>> bring the OVC solution to completion. A thousand or more supporting
>> memberships at $10 per month will ensure OVC's work can continue. Our
>> immediate goal is 1111 memberships by 11/11. Please join us today to secure
>> democracy for the future!
>>
>> Join: Become an OVC Supporting Member for $10 a month.
>>
>> The Open Voting Consortium is designed as a 501(c)(6) organization, which
>> means that donations are not tax deductible. You will be contributing to
>> securing the democratic process for future generations.
>>
>>
>>
>> Popkin, Laird (WMG Corp) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like to propose that we send the following email out to as many lists
>>> as possible. Of course, I'm not a marketing person, so if someone wants to
>>> jump in and make it better, I'd be thrilled! :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Subject: OVC Announces Goal of "1111 by 11/11"
>>>
>>>
>>> On November 2, tens of millions of invisible ballots will be counted that
>>> were created with secret software. Nine out of ten computer scientists say
>>> we should not trust democracy with these voting machines (called Direct
>>> Record Electronic or "DRE"). They have some advantages like ease of use, no
>>> need for a pre-printed ballot, the ability accommodate voters with
>>> disabilities, easy to handle multiple languages, and so on. But what
>>> evidence is there that your vote was handled correctly? Ask for a recount
>>> and they'll push a button and get the same number.
>>>
>>>
>>> Election officials say, "trust us." But why should you? What if you could
>>> print out your completed ballot on-the-spot in the voting booth using an
>>> inexpensive computerized machine that has all the advantages of the
>>> paperless ones? Major newspapers from coast-to-coast have endorsed the
>>> concept of public software and paper ballots that the Open Voting Consortium
>>> (OVC) is promoting. The San Jose Mercury news called the OVC system the
>>> "Holy Grail." [ link ]
>>>
>>>
>>> We can make available a more secure voting system that has all of the
>>> advantages of touchscreen voting, but produces a printed ballot and has all
>>> components publicly inspectable. Institutions are supporting business as
>>> usual. We need your help now. It will take on-going support over the next
>>> two years. A thousand or so supporting memberships at $10 per month will
>>> ensure a good start. Our immediate goal is 1111 memberships by 11/11.
>>> Please join us today to secure democracy for the future!
>>>
>>>
>>> Join: Become an OVC Supporting Member for $10 a month.
>>>
>>>
>>> The Open Voting Consortium is designed as a 501(c)(6) organization, which
>>> means that donations are not tax deductible. You will be contributing to
>>> securing the democratic process for future generations.
>>
>

==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
==================================================================
Received on Mon Nov 1 15:28:51 2004